Seems like today every TV manufacturer under the sun is touting an "LED" TV - complete bullshit of course, but they're doing it nonetheless. Now we have Viewsonic with "LED" monitors.

I can understand marketers trying to mislead the public, but things are really backwards when tech blogs like Engadget swallowing the BS and also calling these things LED monitors.

The only actual LED display products are OLED and those are not budget products nor are they mass-market items at this time. The displays we're seeing here are all regular or low-end LCDs, simply with LED backlighting - which is, in technology terms, ancient.

In the TV space we're also seeing LED edge-lit LCD screens marketed as high-end even though this type of backlighting generally sucks and produces brighter edges without the possibility to do local dimming.

So much wool getting pulled over people's eyes. And it's working.

Agreed, but LED backlighting TV's do have some benefits over the old CCFL technology. For one, they consume less power. That's always nice. The other is the local dimming which you already mentioned, but indeed, that does not work for edge-lit screens.

Is there even any such thing as a non-LED-lit LCD screen being sold anymore?

In Australia, they tried to do something about it, but they're still called "LED TVs" in most advertising.

http://www.smarthouse.com.au/TVs_And_Large_Display/LED/T9P9U2D6

And of course the staff in the retail stores continue to feed misinformation to the public.

Bruno, I completely agree that the marketing of this is total BS, but it seems that your initial problem with all of this is that the average consumer is being sold something marketed as an "LED" TV when it's not.

The flaw in this issue is in assuming that the average consumer even knows what true LED TVs would be. I guarantee that the average Joe wouldn't be able to tell you why it's better.

So, aside from the edge-lit issue, which I agree is a step backward and not good, technically these "LED" TVs are at least better than the previous generation (CCFLs, weren't they?).


But hey, the TV set industry is hardly surprising here. They're still chasing that high they tasted when the HD era hit, and they (and their shareholders) don't care or don't believe that they'll never see a hit like that again. It's why they tried so hard with 3D, and it's why they attempt misleading tactics like this to sell units.

The thing that annoys me more is the user interfaces on most of these sets. They are universally abysmal. I've always wanted just a dumb monitor and nothing else, but they keep trying to shove more crap in there.

I don't know about picture quality, but the three pluses I see for LED backlights are (1) much lower power consumption, (2) longer lifespan, and (3) lighter weight set design for easier portability.

I have an LED backlit TV. LED is definitely the way to go for backlighting. This thread was prompted by the marketing of screens as LED screen as opposed to LCD, which is what they are.

Products are being marketed as an alternative to 1. Plasma and 2. LCD - when of course they are in fact LCD.

Conversation from an acquaintance goes something like this: "have you heard about or seen these new LED TVs that are out now? They say they're much better than LCD."

At which point the forehead slap comes.

But what I'm asking you is what harm this causes for the people you're talking about. If there were a viable "true" LED TV out there, and people were being fooled into thinking that's what they had, then sure, I'd have a problem with it. But there are no feasible LED TVs out there, so it's just an issue that they don't understand the underlying technology, and the people you're talking about NEVER understand the underlying technology and they never will. In this case, at least they're getting something that is in fact better than what they had before (except for edge-lit - as I said, I agree that's no good).

Some of these people already have LED backlit LCD screens. The purpose of the marketing speak was to fool consumers into thinking that, for example, Samsung's new LED TV was something different and better than LG's LCD TV.

I suppose that if EVERYONE were using the terminology it would be a more level playing field when comparing newly advertised products.

But that doesn't change the fact that it bothers me that these companies are completely misrepresenting the technology and that a tech blog like Engadget goes along with it.

That's true, that would be pretty misleading if they already had LED backlighting, though I would think that if you had such a screen, it's a little early for an upgrade. How long has there been using LED backlighting in units cheap enough for mass consumption?

On a certain level, though, I feel like it's the consumer's duty to put in the research when spending the kind of money that these TVs cost. Or, at the very least, they seek out a trusted source who knows how these things work and has done the research for them (and no, I'm definitely not talking about some guy in a Best Buy uniform). If you're not going to do either of those things, and they're just going to walk into Coscto and pick up the first set at the size they want, then some of the blame falls on them.

Of course, if you're not going to do any amount of research into the product, chances are you're not the type of viewer who cares about the difference between edge-lit and full LED backlighting...

Maybe it's different up there in the Great White North, but, in my experience, they've been calling LED-backlit LCD TVs "LED TVs" pretty much since day one.

I don't read any Canadian tech blogs nor attend any Canadian CES events, so I'm not so sure about that. LED backlit TVs have been around at least 5 years and 5 years ago nobody was calling them "LED TVs"

Frankly I'm surprised the FTC in the US allows that term to be used at all. It's a much bigger stretch than calling a 41.5" display 42"

How long before someone markets their WiFi equipped TV as "Wireless TV" ?

At least this is something the stores are good about. From what I've observed, they would usually list a TV like that as "42" class," and then list the actual dimensions. I assume they do this to get better yields on the glass?


I think they get by just fine on calling them "internet TVs" or something like that."

In the grand space of marketing misrepresentation in TV sales, I'm not particularly bothered by the LED/CCFL confusion. I'm far more bothered by the claimed brightness rations (a million to one!) which rely on artificially dimming the backlight during dark scenes. My Sony XBR Bravia pricey set does this, and there's no way to disable it. (And believe me, I've tried.) I'm also bothered by the "demo mode" where TVs in stores are generally set up with absolutely horrid color balance, brightness, and so forth, because... it sells! Never mind that you can't make an effective comparison of things that might actually matter, like how well a TV handles black levels, unless the TVs you're looking at were both calibrated at the same time by somebody who knew at least a little bit about what they're doing.

If I were king for a day, I'd ban the contrast and brightness and so forth settings and require consumer TVs to implement sRGB correctly and call it a day.

Which is why when I came to buy my first TV in 15 years, I didn't even go into a shop to look at it. I based my purchase on reviews on websites that seemed to know what they were talking about when it came to judging picture quality.

Loving my new Panasonic plasma, the picture is just so good (and it was half the price of the last TV I bought back in 1997).

Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that when someone marketed an LED TV, what they meant was this:

- LCD screen, and,
- LED backlighting, *specifically with the local dimming feature* for blacker blacks.

In other words, my expectation is that an LCD screen with an LED backlight *without* local dimming would just be called an LCD screen.

If you're saying that the latter is also being marketed as an LED TV, then yeah, I agree, I would be unhappy to hear about that, and in the future I will adjust my expectations accordingly when looking at marketing materials for screens.

Because that was, as I remember, the whole hype behind local-dimming LED backlights: It solved the problem of washed-out-looking black areas that LCD TV's were known for. I've got an LG TV with the LED local dimming, and I can say that it really kicks ass in that area. Blacks are super dark compared to my older LCD TV.

I think the industry has really shot itself in the foot here... What are they going to call it when they actually invent a TV where the pixels really are LEDs? (I mean, consumer-grade, of course. Right now a screen that's all LED's already has a name: "jumbotron" )

Oled.

Tony, most manufacturers seem to be using "LED TV" for any TV that employes LEDs in any way shape or form for backlighting. Most manufacturers do not have now, nor have ever had local-dimming models available.

I picked up a Vizio local dimming 55" model in the XVT series, their highest at the time, just before they added internet bullshit to them, in Spring 2010 and I love it. It blows away any current thin Samsung models with edge-lit backlighting. Sure, it's a lot thicker at over 10cm, but it's hidden behind a panel anyway and not a single source component or wire is visible in my install either.

Indeed, "LED" doesn't necessarily imply "local dimming". That's a feature that would be explicitly called out.

Now, there are other really important things they *should* talk about but don't. For example, not all LEDs are made equally. They come in very different "bins" of brightness per watt, as well as bins of color temperature. Blue-ish LEDs are brighter and cheaper than yellow-ish. Depending on what LED bins the TV manufacturer selects, you'll have differences in color response accuracy and gamut.

And then there's my favorite pet peeve: matte vs. glossy screens. Glossy screens seem to get better "contrast ratio" specs and they do indeed look better if you're in a pitch-black room. But otherwise, you see reflections of the room in the screen.

Lastly, there's the quality of the digital section. There are all sorts of tricks the manufacturers play with noise reduction, deinterlacing, interpolating higher frame rates, etc. The high-dollar home theater types use external boxes for all that and are primarily interested in screens that display their input accurately. It can be quite striking the differences between different digital decoders. I was once at a store (Magnolia HiFi in Palo Alto, ~2007) that had a Sony and Samsung, side by side, where the panels came off the same assembly line. They appeared to be properly calibrated. The colors were identical, but the Sony destroyed the Samsung when things got busy on screen and MPEG devolved into a blocky mess. The Samsung showed blocky yuck, while the Sony seemed much better.

Aside from that edge-lit issue, which I agree isn't great, I love those Samsung D8000-series models. The biggest problem I have with them, though, is that a)the stand is hideous, and b)extending from that, the bright silver bezel...

You're assuming that the 'O' would still be valid...

I know it's been announced for quite some time now, but AFAIK this is still the technology 'most likely to succeed' when it comes to self-light-emitting pixels. (correct me if I'm wrong).

Bruno, where have you been.

TV's have been "wireless" since day one.

I suspect it's just marketing taking best advantage of conversions from metric to inch.
I've never tried to find out how diligent the engineers are about trying it make the panels work out to any exact overall size. I suspect its more dominated by the pixel counts multplyed by the cell sizes.

Also, while getting better yields from the glass is considered somewhere, the raw glass is the cheapest part of a panel. Not to mention that the glass makers, if you are buying enough, will provide any size material desired.

Very true. Good observation.

My fav were the old CRT sets.
Big writing on the boxes: 28" display (27" in Canada).
Or maybe it was the other way round. I forget.

I don't know what to tell you. Here's an example from over three years ago....

Seems like Australia's regulators are awake: http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/03/aussie-regulator-raps-tv-makers-wifi-ready/

No more touting "Wi-Fi" on TVs that have nothing of the sort. I thought only Samsung was falsely advertising internet capabilities, but it turns out it's an industry-wide issue with Sony, LG and others also doing it.

Millionaire ready +1

Is "Wi-Fi Ready" really that confusing though? Not saying that Wi-Fi is fitted.

It's misleading because "WiFi" ready is more descriptive of a product that simply needs a WiFi network to connect to, In the case of the TV they have WiFi nothing on0board. They can use a WiFi dongle, which in the came os Samsung completely negates the ability to put their TV flat up against a wall. But using a dongle is BS. They can advertise such a set as "USB ready"

If your TV can't connect immediately to the internet as soon as you plug the power cable in, then you have no business and no right to advertise any kind of internet functionality. I'm happy to see Australia taking this stand and I would hope to see other countries following suit. The TV business is pretty shady right now.

TV makers have been playing the "Ready" card for a long time.
Cable ready, HDTV ready, Internet ready. Wifi is just the latest.

I don't know why we haven't seen 3D ready.

It really is a red flag kind of term.